3 ms·
> Purists will probably complain about the audio being modified. As a SoundCloud user, I would argue that a great number of the target audience (musicians) wou
by alsetmusic 9y ago
> Purists will probably complain about the audio being modified.
As a SoundCloud user, I would argue that a great number of the target audience (musicians) would be turned off by having a carefully crafted mix altered. Anyone who has spent large amounts of money on the tools of their trade has an investment in achieving a particular result from their hard work. The listener is (IMO) secondary to the artist in this case.
- disantlor 9y agothats fair but I always found soundcloud's stream compression to be pretty bad. I think maybe it got better recently but there was a long time where it sounded like ~128kbps or less, particularly on stuff with cymbals, etc
- _wmd 9y agoThe problem is simple enough that it could be solved client side, with some precomputed metadata from the server (an 8-bit integer for e.g. ReplayGain). That could be implemented as a little checkbox that twiddles the volume control from JS
- jacalata 9y agoThen give the artist tools to fit a normalized audio experience, or build a business that doesn't need listeners.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- interfixus 9y ago"The customer is secondary to the manufacturer". Good luck with that.
- alsetmusic 9y agoI have always viewed musicians as SoundCloud's primary customers. That's who brings listeners. The site is built first for hosting, second for streaming. The streaming audience is a consequence of artist utilizing the platform. I would revert to hosting my music only on my own sites if I learned that SC was altering my audio. Edit: imagine if github altered code when hosting public repositories.